Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?

Thursday, August 26, 2010

'We have no quarrel with the German people...'

But we don't like the cult.

by StFerdIII

During the 1930s, Churchill issued broadcasts and circulars outlining why the Nazi cult was a menace to Europe's and Britain's very existence. He never said 'German people'. Churchill was careful and accurate in his assessment to divorce the German people, from the Nazi cult. As he well knew, the Nazi party had 2 million members. This meant that officially at least, some 68 million Germans were outside of the formal cult structure. The distinction between the ideology and the person is significant. The cult can well be a problem. The individual may or may not be.

This truism is obvious. But what is also clear is that if you can't name your enemy, you can never be victorious. Imagine if Churchill had pronounced the Nazis a cult of moderation and peace, and suggested that the Nazi predilection for the Gestapo, concentration camps, Jewish genocide; war and social barbarism was the work of a just a few 'fanatics' inside the Nazi party. It would have been absurd. The Nazi party had 2 million members. Certainly many of these devotees were not extremist acolytes of Hitler, who believed in the sordid details of Mein Kampf. The same would apply to the 65 million Germans who were outside of the formal party. Were they also all moderates? Did it matter if they were? War was enjoined and the Germans fought like ferocious lions even long after it was obvious that they were going to lose.

This means that the ideology of the cult, its beliefs, rituals, works, and leadership, are far more important than the individual. Cultural Marxists, politicians, the media and the associated rabble of left-wing losers, do not understand this basic fact. Individuals in a cult don't exist. They are subsumed into the collective and communal and it is therefore the leadership, the texts, the demands, and the theology of the cult which are paramount. In a moon cult such as Islam, in which the moon idol is the central figure of worship and reverence, the individual is ignored and told that he or she has no rationality and no individual power. They must simply obey. Church and state are merged and free-will – the basis for rational thought, enlightenment and even property ownership – is denied.

Islam mitigates against all aspects of a cognitive, intelligent, and free society. Freedom of speech, free choice and free-will simply do not exist within Islam. It is thus the anti-thesis of a religion. It is a cult. A cult shares little in common with a true faith, since a religious and spiritual program frees the individual from the cult, slashes the bonds of the communal, and elevates the person's worth, and allows them to pursue their own faith, their own lives, and to use their own minds. That is the essence of a humanizing philosophy. None of that can be found anywhere in Islam, its liturgy, its history, or its practice. In fact you find the opposite of course.

I have read Churchill's fine book 'The River War', which is a study of the British and Egyptian conflict with the Sudanese Muslims or 'Dervishes' in the late 19th century. It makes for great reading since it appraises Islam as it is – not as we would wish it to be. The Dervishes believed that the 12th Imam or Mahdi, would return to earth, to unify Islam, a belief held today by Iran's ruler Ahmadinejad. The Imam would restore the power of the Caliphate and begin the war to wipe out non-Muslims and put the entire globe under the rule of Allah, or the Meccan moon deity and family idol of Mohammed. Many Muslims – tens of millions – even today have a deep belief that the Mahdi, who will be related to Mohammed, shall appear, and lead Islam to glorious global control. What is moderate about such a belief?

Churchill's other great work on fighting Islam is the 'The Story of the Malakand Field Force' which describes the British effort in Afghanistan against Muslim Pathans. Contrary to media disinformation, the British never tried to conquer Afghanistan, but simply desired to use it as a buffer state against Russian imperialist ambition and to protect India. The British policy was astute - bribe and trade with friendly tribes, and punish those who did not recognize British interests and power. Conquering a land as barren and useless as Afghanistan was never considered. Like the River War, the Malakand Field Force contains many pithy and searing indictments of what is obviously a cult of Mohammed and one which is completely at variance with the Western tradition:

“Their system of ethics, which regards treachery and violence as virtues rather than vices, has produced a code of honour so strange and inconsistent, that it is incomprehensible to a logical mind.

… Truth is unknown among them.
In such a state of society, all property is held directly by main force. Every man is a soldier. Either he is the retainer of some khan -- the man-at-arms of some feudal baron as it were -- or he is a unit in the armed force of his village -- the burgher of mediaeval history.”
That religion, which above all others was founded and propagated by the sword -- the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men -- stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism.

That religion – or cult as he should have called it – was indeed spread by violence, terror, war and plunder. Mohammed admitted as much as we find calls for the same throughout the Koran and Hadiths. Islam has generated the greatest slaughter in man's history. It is the most destructive ideology yet created, and has killed 2 times more humans than Communism, and some 15 times more than the barbarisms of Central Asia which ravaged parts of the world for almost 1000 years. Islam is the most potent form of savage violence ever concocted.

And yet what do we hear from really clever people? Islam is love. Islam is peace. A cult of submission is freedom. Arbeit macht Freiheid. Up is down. Left is right. And Islam loves all of humanity. Orwell is turning over in his grave angry that he did not pen a work on the modern politically-correct idiocy which surrounds a moon cult from Mecca.

“Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”[Orwell]

Politically correct language is even more nefarious. We are not even allowed to criticize Islam without the state being interested or little minds screaming 'hate speech'. This is uni-directional censorship and reality avoidance. It is okay for Muslims to beat women, kill young girls, defame Jews and Christians, burn Bibles and our flags; blow up public spaces, read the hate speech rag named the Koran; and then in screeching tones demand that we 'respect' them; even while they loathe us and our civilization....at some point even the most patient of fair-minded thinkers has to get sick and tired of a cult with so many hypocrisies, and steeped in so much violence and mendacity. At some point the mass of the people are going to tell Islam and Muslims to go stuff it:

“One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!” – Winston Churchill

Churchill would never be elected in the post-modern, feminized, contra-reality world of today. Speaking plainly would have won him few friends in today's ever-so sensitive politically correct world. He would have torn to shreds the myth that Islam is anything more than the cult of Mohammed. In so doing he most likely would have had himself sued out of politics – proving of course his point. But a cult Islam most assuredly is. A religion it is not. Won't name your enemy? Lose than the battle for your civilization.